Give up the 1st in the Nation Primary for the good of the Democratic Party?

Question for Deaniacs: would you support giving up our first in the nation primary for the good of the party? If we let states with large numbers of electoral votes have early primaries, maybe we would get better presidential candidates who could carry more states?
Don't get mad, just let me know what you think.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

NH should stay first in the nation

Nothing showed this more than the Nader-sponsored recount this election cycle. All eyes on NH saw how different things can be when a state preserves its electoral integrity helped in large part by the office of Secretary of State and participatory citizens. In stark contrast to the corrupt and outrageous systems in Florida and Ohio, each of which in turn corrupted the national presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, NH presented a picture of dignity, citizen participation, gravity, and honor in how we handle elections. We do the same during the primary. NH citizens put candidates to the test. They must come and face the voters personally. I don't buy the demographics argument either. The NH primary, which forces politicians to get out of their washington-induced delusionary life, is perhaps one of the few genuine elements left in a problematic electoral system. I say: keep the NH first in the nation status for the good of the country. As far as the Democratic Party goes, IMHO they have a lot more work to do than moving the primary.

Since no one else has weighed in on this...

Article expired, sorry about that.